User talk:Chzz/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Question
would you be interested in taking on the added responsibility of admin? — Ched : ? 08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've thought about it a few times; not sure. I hate the DRAMA side of things. Hmm. Why do you ask? Chzz ► 09:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've worked with you both on wiki and off. I realize that you have exceptional skills. You're able to approach situations with a rational viewpoint, evaluate the circumstances, and provide a reasonable solution. Skills that are befitting an admin. You concentrate on building the 'pedia - be it the "spotlight" project, or the chzz/10 - your efforts are always geared towards building. I'm a real "new" guy and all, but I know that the folks who actually work on building the 'pedia, are the most valuable. I just thought that if you had a couple extra tools to work with, you could do even more. — Ched : ? 09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; I really appreciate that. I will give it some thought. Chzz ► 09:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you were to give the go ahead, I would defiantly put in a co-nom. BTW I hope to be back in with the spotlight channel sometime soon.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks; I really appreciate that. I will give it some thought. Chzz ► 09:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've worked with you both on wiki and off. I realize that you have exceptional skills. You're able to approach situations with a rational viewpoint, evaluate the circumstances, and provide a reasonable solution. Skills that are befitting an admin. You concentrate on building the 'pedia - be it the "spotlight" project, or the chzz/10 - your efforts are always geared towards building. I'm a real "new" guy and all, but I know that the folks who actually work on building the 'pedia, are the most valuable. I just thought that if you had a couple extra tools to work with, you could do even more. — Ched : ? 09:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
shannon leech
Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.210.213 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hahaha thank you you just made my day ^.^ Captain n00dle T/C 16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Recent problems at Zoltan Kodaly, pt 2 / Robert Hawker
This is something in the past now: I have always entered edit summaries as a routine and now get reminded of blanks. For a minor edit I might not put anything very meaningful in: I have seen ones like "removed duplicate full stop" which is more than required. Occasionally I will revert an edit which I am sure is vandalism but perhaps the explanation shd be the first thing in the edit summary rather than added at the end as it might not all be displayed. For a good faith misguided amendment I would delete the standard message and enter something relevant. Another thing that I found puzzling was an fine article on Robert Hawker which had been originally a section in another called Charles Church but references for both these articles were virtually non-existent yet the content had been scrutinised by many different editors.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree; I see that you've tagged it. Sadly there are a lot of articles like that - important ones too. All we can do is try and make things a little bit better. That one will make a nice project for someone, one day - get hold of a few books from the library, and that could be an excellent article. Chzz ► 18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
etc. Chzz ► 05:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of The Woolly Bandits
The article The Woolly Bandits has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Article lacks sufficient Attribution for Verifiability of the WP:BAND notability criteria
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it looks Much Better than when I tried to put some lipstick on this pig, then I tagged it when the refs started looking bogus … I also removed the Category:Flagged articles tag from The Woolly Bandits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) 00:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Someone Added Unnecessary Requests for Citations to the Article
Chzz, someone has added unnecessary requests for citations to the Charles Dennis article. Please go to the Charles Dennis article and you will see what I mean.
Will you tell me how I can find out who added those requests for citations? I was not able to find out who put them in. They need to be removed anyway, and do I need someone's "permission" to remove them?
I looked at the following in wikipedia:
From Wikipedia Burden of Evidence page:
Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.
From George Lucas Article page:
In 1969, Lucas married film editor Marcia Lou Griffin, who went on to win an Academy Award for her editing work on the original (Episode IV) Star Wars film.
All three of his children have appeared in the three Star Wars prequels, as has Lucas himself.
So the above and says that editors must be given time to provide references. It also shows that "everything" does not need to be, nor can it be, referenced.
So, Chzz, I would appreciate your assistance with this matter. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberusrunning (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- You can see who added them in the article history, which is here - and you'll see that it was actually me!
- It's true that, strictly speaking, not everything needs a reference - just anything that is challenged. It's also true that unreferenced material can simply be removed; in this case, I marked it to make it clear that references were required to assert the facts. There is no defined timescale; I merely wanted to mark the concerns. You could certainly try to address the issues by citing the facts, and that would be fine. As the policy says, uncited material may be removed by any editor.
- I'm not quite sure why you mentioned that part of the George Lucas article - is it because it supports some of the facts in Charles Dennis? If so, then the references from that article need citing in this one - Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source, because it is a tertiary source of information.
- As per best practice, I will of course help in any way to get the citations required, and of course I'll help in any way. The article does need good sources for the facts - and it's especially important in biographical articles. Imagine, for instance, if somebody came along and added lots more unreferenced facts to the article - we can only have verifiable information.
- I hope that you will understand why I tagged the facts required; we all want to make better articles, and one way of doing so is by highlighting problem issues such as this.
Athena
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
| Many thanks for your constructive cooperation - a most pleasant and refreshing experience. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
thanks for help
thanks for the help ref Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Emergency Wikipedia shutdown
Isn't this just another atom bomb kept in the open with a trigger that anyone can press? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. I filled a "3 revert" report [1] but apparently there's no violation. I think i didn't fill the report well. Thank you for your help. --Karljoos (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice rescue tagging. I am supposing that those suggesting he does not meet WP:AUTHOR based that opinion upon the 2 audio books in the original version of the article, and not upon a cursory look at Google Books. Bollinger used his language skills to make the crossover from writing to acting and voicework, but has apparently returned to books of late... now in audio format. Care to help me dig to see if his earlier books have received favorable reviews? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I got involved via a helpme from a new user, and felt sorry for their first experience on Wikipedia. I did spend a bit of time looking, hence my comment in the AfD that I'm not yet convinced myself (yet) that it can be saved. I just wanted to do anything possible to restore the faith of the new user, per the sad tale on User_talk:Pdsabooks. Hence, my "rescue" request was a cry for help, really. I hoped, perhaps, others might be able to find things. I will certainly look at it again ASAP. Cheers, Chzz ► 00:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have asked an admin to politely look into advising the editor about his username as a quick block may turn him off on Wikipedia entirely. Like yourself, I commented on his talk page and advised the use of a sandbox for preparing articles... and if this one gets deleted I will suggest a userfication. I am hoping that investigating the body of the author's work will come up with some critical response of his work. Thanks for being kind to newcomers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I'm glad I had a hand in re-writing the article, as the original was worrisomely similar to this. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
| I award you this barnstar for your being kind to the newbies. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC) |
PasoAPaso
Hi Chzz,
could you help me with editing the reference in the following page: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/School_Science/Bell_jar_model_lung#cite_note-0 The symbol for the reference apears, however the reference is nowhere to be seen.
Also would it not be better to move this article back to Wikipedia since it essentially an article about simple lung models and not a book or part of a book.
If I forgot to enter an "Edit Summary", can I still enter one after the fact?
If I forgot to login before editing a page, can I change the edit accordingly to show me as an editor?
PasoAPaso —Preceding unsigned comment added by PasoAPaso (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- References - fixed, see wikibooks:School Science/Bell jar model lung. I've never edited on Wikibooks before, so I hope that this is correct according to their 'style'. References need a section at the end containing the code {{reflist}}, which displays them. See user:chzz/help/ref for help on that.
- Note: Wikipedia is not the same as Wikibooks. Both use the same wiki software, but each wiki have their own standards, rules, etc. I only know about the English Wikipedia. For further help with Wikibooks, please use their own help system.
- "Moving" the article to Wikipedia - I think you are probably right that Wikipedia could have an article about it - but it would need rewriting, rather than moving; Wikipedia has somewhat different standards and policies. Specifically, the Wikibook is more about "how to", and Wikipedia is not a "how to..." guide. If you could gather encyclopaedia facts about the jar model, then yes, certainly an article could be made. I'm sure that there are enough references. It looks like we do not have an article on it yet; I noticed that Respiratory system#cite ref-9 just points to the Wikibook.
- Re. Edit summary - No, sorry, but it is not possible to change an edit summary later. The only thing that you could do is, make a further edit without changing anything, and explain in the edit summary of that one.
- Re. Not logging in - Again, sorry, but is it possible to change the person making the edit (ie the IP if not logged in). Edits are recorded when they are made (part of the licensing agreements), and it is quite hard to prove that the IP address and user are the same person.
- Please note, when you leave messages on my talk page, please a) put them in a "New Section", and b) "sign" your name by putting ~~~~ at the end. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Chzz,
- Thanks a lot for your help and explanations. I was not aware that wikibooks and wikipedia are not the same, especially since I could log in with the same user name and password. I followed the link "Bell jar model lung" in the Wikipedia article "Respiration (physiology)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiration_%28physiology%29) which I interpreted as an internal Wikipedia link. It directly led to Wikibooks, first to a deleated article and after further searching to the indicated article.
- I want to correct the link in the Wikipedia article "Respiration (physiology)".
- What is common practice in this case?
- To use a an internal link to point directly to the Wikibooks article or to point to it in a reference?
- If Wikipedia and Wikibooks are somewhat seperate entities I would assume the last being correct.
PasoAPaso PasoAPaso (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know; it's all quite confusing. "wiki" is a piece of software, written by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is a non-profit org. The Foundation provides hosting and support for lots of wikis, including the various language Wikipedias, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity...and more.
- Each wiki does its own thing, with regards to policies, procedures, administration, etc. Each has different standards. There is even a vast difference between the standards on different language Wikipedias - for example, the German Wikipedia uses flagged revisions.
- We consider these other wikis to be "Sister projects" - hence, you can link to them with shortcuts. It is preferable to use the shortcuts than the full URL. Hence, in answer to your question, best practice is to use
[[wikibooks:School Science/Bell jar model lung]]. You can find a list of the links in Wikipedia:InterWikimedia links.
- We consider these other wikis to be "Sister projects" - hence, you can link to them with shortcuts. It is preferable to use the shortcuts than the full URL. Hence, in answer to your question, best practice is to use
Arthur Adams (singer)
Thanks for the cleanup of the cleanup, I must have accidentally subst it. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I had found this mentioned on your page and curiosity got the best of me. I found the scope of this man's claimed careerr to be most impressive... way too impressive... nobody could have done all that was claimed for this guy and be for real. When looking at the version you yourself looked at, I can well understand your hitting up the article's assertions up for sources. So I had a look for sources, gave its structure a major re-assembly and have begun sourcing the article. You might check in every once in a while over the next few days, and please makes any suggestions you might wish. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Great, go for it. I just had a bit of a hack myself; removed the refs to the 'charlesdennis' website and things like that. That's what I'm most concerned about - there are a lot of unsourced claims - if you follow up sources, they don't always cover the facts given. Chzz ► 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. Though I did modify and return his work at Toronto Telegram, making sure the information was directly supported by the citations. I have begun sources to filmography due to your tag, but it is not usual practice to require the filmography section of actors be itself sourced. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus
I love the song, but the article seems to me to lack a bit of structure, have too much duplication, cover bits and bobs that aren't related to the song itself, and even duplicate things too much. Any objection if I hack it around a bit? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Also, just to let you know, there is a thread about it at WT:DYK. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Snow in August?
Hi! I closed the Rhythm and blues move request early per WP:SNOW, because it seems that it would be against established policy (plus, a lot of other articles would have to be moved as well). Let me know if you have a problem with it. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problem at all, thank you. I asked a few people about it online, we tried to find the applicable standards, but we weren't sure, hence I started that debate - and I was certainly corrected! It would seem some others might agree that the convention is wrong - but that is an argument for another place. Thus, thanks for closing it. Cheers, Chzz ► 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
References
Thanks. I created a list of references, which appear as secondary sources. They all start with the artistes name. I added them to References, hoping somebody would link them with the main text. Instead, they keep being moved into External Links. Their relevance may not be appreciated until they are properly linked. I do not know how to link the links to the text. Could you do the first TWO, so I can see the way the HTML coding works. What buttons need to be used to do referencing besides the ref/ref button. How do they stay automatically numbered (in the right sequence)? Also, I am not sure whether simple, named or cited references can all be used. What happens if a reference needs to be cited but only a named/simple one is available. Thanks. (Zanze123 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
- The system is mostly automatic; you put the reference in-line, in the text, surrounded by the "ref" and "/ref" tags, like this:
This is a fact.<ref> Some book, page 23 </ref>
- You can put anything you want between the two tags. Whether you name them, or use the fancy 'citation template', is entirely up to you. Using named references makes things neater, and using citation templates makes for a more 'standardized' layout.
- You also need a {{reflist}} somewhere, and this should be in a section called "references" at the end of the article (but before the external links, if any). Most existing articles will already have that bit.
- I cannot speak Spanish, so it is hard for me to make an example on the article. I know some Spanish speakers, and will ask if they can help fix it up. Good luck with it, Chzz ► 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- My Spanish-speaking friend was too busy, so I've tried to do it myself; apologies if I have got some of the info in the wrong place. Please see this edit. I hope that this will point you in the right direction; from an auto-translate of the first reference, I thought that it could be used for the facts that a) she has been in Nieva, and b) she has worked with Antonio Escobar. So, I put all the citation details between "ref" and "/ref" just after the part about Nieva, and I also used a named reference, so that after the "Escobar" fact I could just put the shorthand version to link to the same reference.
- Yes this is a help. Thanks. I have put the links in place, but I don't know how to remove the second Reference section which now appears, and also, the English text which relates to each Reference Link appears below the link instead of next to each link. I really wouldn't know how to change this. My expertise was writing the bulk of the listing. Could you or someone help clean up the technical side? I'm not even sure of what all the issues are that it says need to be sorted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanze123 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all that. Now just 1 last issue. How to add a photo? Is it only possible if we add a link to an existing photo, or can fresh photos be added? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanze123 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Uploading a picture is easy; the tricky part is copyrights. If it is your own photo, it's extremely easy - just go to commons:upload and follow the instructions. If it is somebody elses picture, we will need their explicit permission to use it; let me know if that is the case, and I'll explain more. You might find all of this easier if you talk to us live, with this or this. Chzz ► 02:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
ACC
Hi - just wondering - was this closed as "created" or dropped? Thanks. 7 talk | Δ | 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I emailed the user, explaining that, whilst I *could* make it for them, it was suggested by WP:USERNAME that they have at least some Latin script - I wrote a nice email about it, and got a nice reply, saying they'd use a Latin name, so please don't create it. I added a comment to that effect, and then thought that the correct option would just be to click 'done'. Please advise if that was correct; I thought it the most appropriate option from the choices I had. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Probably fine just like it is, but that means that they would have gotten an email stating that you created the account. I would have thought "Invalid" or "Drop" would have been more appropriate. Invalid would have told them via email their account was not created (which you had already done via personal email) or Drop would have just canceled the request with no email (maybe best in this case since you already emailed them. But like I said, no problem - I was just confused when I saw the user changed their mind in the comments and then "created" in the status. Thanks 7 talk | Δ | 01:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: MJ discussion
Thanks for the message. I was more than happy to pitch in, but after scoping over the 30 posts, I don't think I really have time to read it! To many people trying to push their own point across. Maybe later. Thanks. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please do; I'm doing my best to keep the discussion on-track - see my Comment. I hope that this won't be another case where 'he who shouts loudest wins' because it's all tl;dr. Chzz ► 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Alright I'm going through it now. Really get repulsed when the first sentence in an arguemnt is "you are wrong beaucse (I said so)" or "Ugh I've been through this over and over again. Harout72 here is completely power hungry." bla bla bla... No idea. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
RE:Edit
It was a twinkle glitch. Sorry for any inconvenience. Undead Warrior (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Chzz, thank you very much. I really appreciate your help. Gotta run for now, but I'll be back (like Arnold).
Thanks Again & more help!
Okay got the box but can't get this image in http://www.grayskullmuseum.com/conception/box20.jpg or one of these http://www.treasuretitan.com/tt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102:megator-&catid=36:creatures&Itemid=440 . Also can't take this out of the box: Name {{{Name}}} I don't see it when I click edit. Also how do I make the article go live when I finish? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1/sandboxHordak1 (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Got ur message thanks I will remember that! Waiting on your answers!Hordak1 (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problem :-)
- And I'm sorry, my reply has taken a little bit longer than I expected; my internet connection failed, and it would not reconnect for about 20 minutes.
- As a tip, note that you can link to Wikipedia pages by just putting, for example, [[sausage]] or User:Hordak1/sandbox - which will appear as sausage and User:Hordak1/sandbox.
- You can only upload copyright/fair use images when they can be used on a live article - so wait until it is live before adding a picture. Also, to upload pictures, your account has to be more than 4 days old. I note yours was made on 9 August, so you won't be able to upload yet. If/when the article is live, ask me again and I can explain how to do it.
- The 'name' problem is because you didn't specify a name in the infobox. You need to add a line, such as;
|Name=Chzz
- To make the article live, you move it to the live area - but again, because your account is so new, you will not be able to move articles yet. I can move it for you, but before I can do that, it needs better referencing. This is important!
- The article needs references to reliable sources. All articles need references, and currently, yours does not. If you did make it live, it would quickly be deleted. Yes, I know, some of the existing articles don't have proper sources, but that doesn't matter - we're working on fixing that. New articles have to have proper references. Everything needs to be verifiable. As an example, your article says "Megator was first shown in action figure form in toy company, Mattel's 1987 Toy Catalog." - how can a reader check that fact? You need to reference some newspaper, magazine, book or something that 'proves' it is true. You need sources - it's essential. I don't know where you can find such sources - maybe on the internet, or maybe via books or something...I'm not sure. It will need research though.
Another Question
Not sure how to use that live talk. But I added some references to the Megator article & I also have a Tytus article. Could you move them to live for me so maybe I could get some help touching it up & refining it.? Thanks a lot! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1/sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1 Hordak1 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please start to put links such as [[User:Hordak1/sandbox]] rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hordak1/sandbox.
- There are a number of things that need fixing on the article before it could go live; please read up on how to make inline references, as I've explained on your talk page. The article will need better references before it can go live. If I make it live, somebody will just delete it, probably quite quickly.
- To use the live help, you just click the link, choose a nickname, click 'connect', and say "hello". Chzz ► 23:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi Chzz, thank you very much for the kind help with the username. This is the account I will be using. ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well deserved
|
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
| For all your tireless work in helping newcomers on IRC, even when the bot tires, you somehow manage to stay as helpful as ever! Your dedication and support is a real asset, I have no idea what we'd do without you! Stwalkerster [ talk ] 21:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks & more help!
Thanks for the help! But if you have access to my sandbox could you look at my megator article & tell me how do I give it the big Meagator title on top and add the info boxes that always appear on the right side of Wikipedia articles.Hordak1 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- The title at the top is simply the name of the article - so when it becomes a live article, it will presumably be called "Meagator" - that will be the actual name of the page, and hence will display at the top, where it currently says "User:Hordak1/sandbox".
- For the infobox, if you look at Hordak and edit it, you'll see that it has the infobox code at the beginning. I've reorganized it a bit here, to make it clearer;
{{Infobox He-Man/She-Ra Character
|Alliance=#B22222
|Image=[[Image:example.jpg]] <BR>Hordak with a ''[[Horde Trooper]]''
|Title=Hordak
|Name=Hec-Tor Kur
|Status=Alive
|Affiliation=[[Skeletor]], [[Evil Horde|The Horde]]
|Family=[[Horde Prime]], possible older sibling
|Powers=Shape-shifting
|Weapons=Can turn himself into a rocket and his arms into cannon
|Actor=[[George DiCenzo]]
}}
{{Infobox He-Man/She-Ra Character
|Alliance=#B22222
|Image=[[Image:example.jpg]] <BR>Hordak with a ''[[Horde Trooper]]''
|Title=Hordak
|Name=Hec-Tor Kur
|Status=Alive
|Affiliation=[[Skeletor]], [[Evil Horde|The Horde]]
|Family=[[Horde Prime]], po
ssible older sibling
|Powers=Shape-shifting
|Weapons=Can turn himself into a rocket and his arms into cannon
|Actor=[[George DiCenzo]]
}}
- That produces the infobox that you see here - except that I had to change the picture, because of "fair use of a copyright image" - that pic can only be used on a live article.
- if you copy the code above, and change all of the things, then you can make an infobox for your proposed article. You 'fill in the blanks'. For a list of all the available parameters for that particular infobox, see template:Infobox He-Man/She-Ra Character. For more help on this subject, see WP:INFOBOX. Chzz ► 19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Campbell vandal
Hi, I'm coming here as you requested. The Campbell Soup Company article is under attack again, this time by a different anon IP, 63.164.47.227. They are using the same tactics as 216.207.40.6, that is, using my revert reason as the reason for their revert. Can we do a temporary lock on this article or some other measure? This person obviously knows how to get in through various IPs. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 03:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Burkeguy
I hope you won't mind if I contact you again during this process.
--Burkeguy 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)
- No worries. A couple of quick tips, regarding leaving messages on talk pages
- Please make a new section at the end of the page, either by clicking 'new section' at the top, or putting == Something ==.
- Please "sign" your name by typing ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end. That will put your username, links to your pages, and the date and time.
Mucke
Cheers
Hey, cheers for the comment on my user page :)
Just wondering if you could give me your opinion on the discussion currently underway at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 42#Fair use covers in a video game discography. Feel free to add to the discussion but I was wondering if you could give me your opinion ON the discussion... if that makes sense? -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- My thoughts on the subject, and on the discussion, are intrinsically interlinked.
- I struggle to understand the basic idea behind "fair use" of non-free content. It is frequently pointed out that copying without permission is a form of theft. "Fair use" seems to me rather like saying, "It's absolutely wrong to steal, and it is illegal, except if you only steal a little bit, and you have a really good reason to do so.
- Thus, it is impossible to define; akin to questions like "What is pornography". What exactly makes it "fair use"? Looking at one tiny aspect, as an example - the picture must be "low resolution" - so what, precisely, does that mean? I don't know of any clear definition in any policy; there seems to be a kind of 'convention' (in respect of album covers, at least) that 300px is OK. Why this number? Why not 301px? Would such an image bring down the Foundation? The truth is, nobody really knows, until a court makes a decision in a specific case. And the size issue is merely an example; the whole topic is a grey area.
- Thus, in your discussion, I see valid arguments on both sides - but the problem is, nothing can be defined. You will not be able to come up with a clear bullet-point list saying "THIS is OK, but THAT is not". What, precisely, is a 'discography'? Your questions regarding the definition is valid; what is the inherent difference between one article about three albums, or three articles about one? And why should different rules apply? Taking it further - what about sound samples; why is it apparently OK to have an unlimited number samples of tracks in an article (ref. WP:SAMPLE), but only one picture? Oh, as long as they are under 10% or 30 seconds, of course. Rounded up or down? Who knows...and hey, it's only a style guideline.
- It is important to remember that the legal folk spend an awful of of time debating such fundamental dichotomies, and the infinite potential for straw man arguments ensure that they will always have plenty to talk about - and thus plenty of scope to charge for their time.
- So - there are no answers; there are no definitions. If you seek them out, it will drive you crazy. You can debate it forever, but it is an open question, there is no solution. It would not surprise me in the slightest if, one day, Wikipedia decided to (or was forced to) remove all non-free content.
- Thus, the only rational attitude to the topic (as far as I am concerned) is don't-give-a-fuckism - which many dismiss as a joke, but in reality, it is a way of staying sane.
Template Removal
The article was Habban, and the discussion was at User talk:Alfebe. I already did ask him, but all he said was he did not want the article to be removed. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 18:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- (Correction: Alefbe (talk · contribs)) (checking into it now) Chzz ► 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, my error. Please inform me when any changes happen.
Thanks Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 18:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, my error. Please inform me when any changes happen.
- Having looked at the discussion etc, I see here a classic case of two different views - you think it should be moved to Wikt, and the other user disagrees. You put the tag on, they removed it; that's fine. The next step, if you still think that it should be trans-wiki'd, would be to start a discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Habban - and then ask that user to please contribute to the discussion. It would help to get more opinions, so you could add a similar request for input on e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Instruments for example - although that doesn't look very active, so perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music would be a better place to ask. I'd suggest just a brief note, asking them to please contribute to the discussion. The idea is to build a WP:CONSENSUS - bold, revert, discuss.
- For what it's worth, my own opinion would be to keep it on Wikipedia. A quick search here, on Google Books indicates that the instrument is notable enough to have an article. Yes, there are a lot of 'dictionary-type' entries, but mentions in books such as "Omani traditional music" indicate to me that an article could be written. The current state of an article is not a good reason for deletion; if it is notable, and could be improved, then it should remain, so that others can (hopefully) make it better. Per WP:NOTDIC, I (personally) think that there is enough that can be written about the instrument, rather than just about the word itself.
- Of course, if you wish, you could also take it to articles for deletion, and get more opinions that way.
- Best of all, you could fix it yourself by looking at some of those references and expanding it.
- It's not so easy finding sources for it, with it being an Arabic word (and I cannot speak Arabic) - but I'm pretty sure that it would be possible. A machine translation of the Arabic Wikipedia article didn't help me much, as I think that it is linked to the wrong article. The entry in List of bagpipes#Arab states of the Persian Gulf suggests that it is a 'generic term', so I'd need to look into it further. I did find it mentioned in this recent news article, and in bagpiper.com and Oman center for traditional instruments - not necessarily reliable sources, but reasonable indicators, I think.
Your assistance needed
HELP! I need the assistance of an august editor of your calibur. There is an article named Pentecostalism which left a lot to be desired as far as style and capitalzation. It is about a specific religious sect, and as such will provoke strong feelings. Whoever wrote the article capitalized any and all religious references. Can you please read comments on the page Talk:Pentecostalism? All the technical corrections I had made, including gross errors, were reverted to protect a point of view, I suspect. I conceded that Pentecostal references could be capitalized, but very many others were miles away from being proper names. I did earn a ThD degree, so religious terminology is not removed from my field of expertise. Thanks you so much. Respectfully yours, R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- My Word, That Is Dreadful. What Would The Flying Spaghetti Monster Think?
You might wish to comment...
While I understand and agree with your tagging much of the Charles Dennis article for sources, and indeed the sheer number of the tags you placed is what inspired me to work on it, your tagging and then re-tagging the filmography section as unsourced got me worried, as it had never previously been policy to do so in the BLP of an actor. I asked the question at the relevent project in case I was doing something incorrect. Please visit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Sourcing_a_filmology if you'd like to offer your views. Thank you, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for visiting the conversation and I have sincere appreciation for your continued good work. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
re:
Hi, thank you for the message you posted. I made my own remarks within the section and I support the semi-protection along with bringing back the other artists booted off. I know you are neutral but I was wondering if we can take this to any higher authority or to an administrator of some sort. The purpose of Wikipedia as I understand it is to bring together everyone's contributions or at least gather everyone's opinions for a 'democratic' solution. The self-proclaimed owner of that page is shutting out all other contributions and crafting the page to suit himself. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be done. Vpuliva (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- The highest form of authority on Wikipedia is that of the community consensus; an administrator can carry out the wishes of the community, but that is all; they aren't particularly 'in charge'. That said, there are certainly other avenues we can pursue, if necessary. Let's see how this attempt to reach consensus goes, and take it from there. For a good explanation of appropriate steps, see WP:DISPUTE. And indeed, nobody owns any pages. Chzz ► 04:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Michael Jackson's Sales
Hi thanks for being so helpful man. A lot of fans are still emotional with him passing and all and it really looks bad on wikipedia that after he dies he's now held to some insane standard nobody else on that list is held to. There have been countless sources listed for his 750 Million total. What more could anyone want? Also in effort of fairness I think MJ's total should be reverted back to the original amount that it has been for the past two years which is 750+ Million. Atleast until this is sorted out. On the "Protected Wikipedia page description" it states during times like these with heated debates it's usually best to revert everything back to the way it was originally in the effort of fairness.
--Mrparissm (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's really not; see m:The wrong version. The only way to avoid edit wars is to stop, discuss, sort it out, get it all clear, and then change things. There is no deadline; Wikipedia is timeless. What it says for the next few days really doesn't matter at all, in the grand scheme of things. I know exactly what you mean - in my early days on Wikipedia, I had a similar issue with an image on a page, and got into all kinds of troubles over the 'wrong version' being in place whilst we debated it (because it was protected in that state) - but now, looking back, I can see why this policy is important. I hope you'll understand. Chzz ► 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
could you use what you have to help change michael jackson sales Atleast until this is sorted out. On the "Protected Wikipedia page description" it states during times like these with heated debates it's usually best to revert everything back to the way it was originally in the effort like you said all the people on List of best-selling music artists should be treated the same you could see michael jackson has not look at the sources for the beatles and elvis and you can see that the sources for michael are more reliable—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
i what to report JFonseka here is saying sony are wrong but the bbc are right beacuse that is what he wants to believe what do you lot think is more reliable and JFonseka you cant say which one is right just beacuse you said so
sony records know more about sales than anyone on wikipedia and that is a fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
please change sales back to the orginal which is 750 million for the past 2 years for the time being thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.199.143 (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
For leading the young and budding editors to victory over reference sorting
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| I award you this Barnstar of Diligence for being ever diligent on your quest to educate the masses in proper reference sorting. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC) |
As one who's gone through thousands of unreffed links and converted them to proper, aesthetically-pleasing creations, you have no idea how good this is to see. Keep up the great work! :) Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 08:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Uploading Images
Chhzz,
How do I add photos and images to my infobox? I've uploaded a photo and have tried several different ways but it won't show in my infobox...aargh. I've looked at various Wiki tutorials and how to articles, but still can't seem to do it. Can you help? Thanks, Burkeguy 13:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)
Photo deletions
Chzz, I uploaded a photo and got it promptly deleted due to licensing issues. I thought I did what was required by explaining that the photographer gave me permission to upload. Could you help me navigate the licensing maze? I really need to have this photo on the infobox I'm designing. After I get it uploaded, then it will show up, right?
--Burkeguy 14:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)
- Hi! I thought I'd step in here and give chzz a hand. Wikipedia only hosts "free images". That is, media that is licensed to be freely distributed. You might wanna see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images. If it isn't a free image, you can upload it as a fair use image. See WP:UPLOAD, and click the link that applies to the image you're trying to upload. The instructions should help as well. If you need more help, you should talk to us live. :-) Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Campbell vandal
The Campbell Soup Company vandal is back again, this time coming from 12.44.74.2. His tactics are exactly the same. I'll leave it up to as to what to do, but I vote to semi-protect the article. I think warnings are useless against him. Thanks! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- BTW, he just left a message on my talk page (here), essentially admitting he belonged to a Wikipedia vandal network. So, I doubt blocking a single IP address will work... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. Sorry that I was not online earlier. Anyway...that IP address have now been blocked here. Let us know of any further incidents, also, as before, we will monitor things. If you need urgent attention at any time (such as ongoing vandalism), please post a request on WP:ANI. Otherwise, the best thing to do is what you are doing - ignore them, and just let us know so we can block the address. Hopefully they'll get bored if nobody responds. Thanks for your understanding. Cheers! Chzz ► 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Billy Raymond photo copyright
Hi again! I can confirm that Billy Raymond has now sent Wikipedia the necessary template to confirm my use of his photo on his Wiki page. Hope this now meets with all requirements, but please let me know! Thanks. Linda C Wood 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wood200 (talk • contribs)
- OTRS processed, done on user talk, re. File:BILLY-GCAC-2a.jpg.
Cookie !
Taiwanman1 has given you half a biscuit! May Mr. Moult bring you fair winds, your lenor always be discounted, your gargoyles never bear any resemblance to a comedian from Faversham, and your windows be free of condensation.
Spread the goodness of HMHB by adding {{subst:HB}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. Or don't.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwanman1 (talk • contribs)
Concluding the Michael Jackson sales
Hi Chzz,
A number of suggestions have been made so far, Phyrrus suggested going back to the original figure of 750m whilst putting a disclaimer in there somewhere of the dispute for the figure, which doesn't sound like too bad a idea to me. At the same time I feel more effort should be made by contributors to research the recent past record sales reports prior to 2006, I have added relevant material in the rationale, but for the most part the discussion seems to be going down the page. Your input (not necessarily towards the topic) in regards to moderation and the direction this discussion should take to end this as quickly and efficiently as possible would be greatly appreciated. JFonseka (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that the above was made just prior to my writing at the end of Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Simply_wow, re. WP:TIND. I'm assuming that you are suggesting having a footnote - that seems a reasonable compromise to me; I honestly don't (as yet) see any policy-based reason not to change the figure to 750m. A footnote could perhaps be appropriate, if there was something we could refer to that was not original research. I don't think that the WSJ piece is really enough for that; it's too much of an editorial/vague discussion rather than evidence of genuine controversy over the figures. The only controversy I've seen about it is on our own talk page! Also, I'm wary of making an exception for this one, because the article could easily end up with more 'notes' than content; everything on Wikipedia is based on RS (or should be, rather) - and that should be taken as read, when looking at articles. We boldly state 'facts' with RS, and add footnotes as appropriate when a number of RS disagree, but we don't make generic comments saying "don't believe everything you read". Anyway - I'm falling into my own trap here; this discussion should be on the talk page, not here. Thus, please, state your suggestion on there, briefly, and let's see what everyone thinks. Thanks, Chzz ► 00:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
No there should not be a footnote added because that is holding one artist out of the entire list to a different standard. If you MUST you can include a seperate colomn. One with the widely reported figures for these artists. Another with the one from databases. So that means you can still included the official numbers for The Beatles, Elvis, etc... But then include a second colomn with independently verified numbers. Bare in mind a colomn with only verified numbers would actually increase Jackson's position on the list as only second to the Beatles. So if that's what you want so be it. Atleast it would be a listwide change instead of singling Michael Jackson out unfairly.--Mrparissm (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK stuff
Hi. No, it's not me: I just fix entries in the preps once in a while. From what I gather, it's several people - you could try contacting User:Orlady, if you haven't done so already. Dahn (talk) 05:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
stop - thanks list of best selling artists topic
actually, thanks for stopping the discussion. i was offering suggestions to harout12 to peacefully continue with his work either doing so elsewhere on the net on his own page and maybe even offering a deal with a rock magazine, starting a new wiki page with his name on the title, or detailing all explanations of methodologies for all artists on the page itself. I don't know how many people on the discussion page are actually giving him suggestions - so I thought he would like the ideas. In response, he has ignored even considering the options and has been condescending and mocking me in all replies. I have in response defended myself, while trying to push for these options as possibilities. But it has erupted into both of us criticizing each other at the same time, so it is actually good that it has stopped. But I was wondering, can we offer him suggestions in a way that he may consider them? Vpuliva (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for being so understanding about the 'stop' thing. Regarding the suggestions - you could do, of course, and I understand your good intentions - I think it is actually good advice, but I would personally recommend waiting a while; maybe until this Michael Jackson business has been resolved. I hope that will be within the next few days, so I think it would be better to wait until this has 'blown over' before proffering advice. Entirely up to you, of course - but that is my own opinion. Chzz ► 06:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. What do you think of this - I wait a few days like you said, and add a new discussion section to the nature of: suggestions for those against recording label/company numbers, and then list as I did in my previous message. I feel it would be fair so that harout12 can continue with his work privately and without any interference and the public can continue work without the controversy or lack of control - unless you have a suggestion you feel would be more effective or fair. Vpuliva (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Troutman photo advice
Many thanks! I am working with the license holder to have the email sent. Appreciate your assistance, my favorite alien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Troutman photo permission email sent to permissions-commons
How long should I wait before trying to add the image to my draft? --Burkeguy 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)
- Note: When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tildes) at the end of your message. That will add your username, and the date and time.
:It might take a few days for the picture to be processed. Do you know either the email that it was sent from, or part of the subject line, so I can ask someone to look for it? Chzz ► 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Found it!
- The permission is now all sorted out; if you look at File:Kathryn Troutman Photo.JPG, you will see that it now has an OTRS "ticket number" - that links it back to the email we received, which is stored by the Foundation.
- I have moved the proposed article to a subpage, User:Burkeguy/Kathryn Troutman.
- There is a link to that page on your user page, User:Burkeguy.
- I have moved the infobox to the top (because that's where it should be), and I've added the picture in the correct format.
- I will look at the article later, and might make some other tweaks.
I Am Locked Out Of The Michael Jackson Discussion
Chzz I can not believe this. I am unable to comment on anything on the Michael Jackson page anymore. I'm sure if I'm not than a lot of people that were trying to defend Jackson aren't able to comment as well. That is absolutely unfair man. I can't believe someone would do something like that. Block the users on one side of the arguement. I'm blown away right now. It was already looking like the editors all were biased in Harout72's favor. I guess I have my answer. --Mrparissm (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Chzz For Some Reason I Am Blocked
I feel like decisions are being made about the Michael Jackson numbers without my input. This is not fair. I've been in this discussion since the very beginning and then BAM all of a sudden I'm blocked! Can someone approve my account to post on there? I see the usual suspects posting away and how they are going to use the 350 Million number but everyone that was for the 750 Million is now locked out! I don't understand how Wikipedia will let a page be ran like this. --Mrparissm (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. At the moment, the talk page is fully protected, which means that only administrators can edit it. I assure you, this is not to prevent discussion or bias anything - as far as I can tell at the moment, it has been done because of ongoing problems with a user using several accounts to disrupt things - there is a discussion on the Administrative noticeboard, here. I am trying to find out more, and I will let you know. It's not just you - and it won't affect any outcome. Chzz ► 00:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus
|
On August 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
your edits to tablighi jamaat
... were great ! I made a minor change to the first sentence of History section that you edited. I don't know how someone changed it before to imply the completely opposite meaning. Hamza [ talk ] 09:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Questionable actions by Caden towards me, KeltieMartinFan
This is what you left on my talk page earlier today involving my "supposed" attack on a couple of editors.
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Do not describe other editors as "obnoxious" in edit summaries Chzz ► 12:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
For your information, I have NOT been attacking other editors. The two editors in question have been attacking me the past two days. Caden did not tell you the truth when he filed this administrative complain against me. He was attacking me, and so was the other editor by leaving ridiculous comments on my talk page. All I did was simply remove those comments from my talk page, an act that IS legal on Wikipedia. I did NOT go to the users respective talk pages and attacked them, as Caden claimed. These the other user is at fault for prolonging the so-called “fight” by was dealt with civility last week.
Caden is at fault for...
A. getting involved in something that was none of his business,
B. trying to ruthlessly atagonize a situation because that’s this nature, causing trouble with editors he had bad dealings with in the past. Trouble that he himself instigated on every single one.
C. filing a false complain on me for something I did not do, attacking another editor.
I already filed an incident report against the two of them for their nonsense towards me. If it wasn’t for the other users prolonging this issue, you would not be hearing from me (or Caden for that matter) to begin with. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I did look into the situation, and whilst you may well be correct about those matters, I specifically wanted to highlight to you that your edit summary was inappropriate - that was all, and it is not related to anything else. Your removal of their message from your talk page was absolutely fine, but the edit summary was not. That is all there was to it. Unfortunately, many times on Wikipedia, it is necessary to act with utmost civility, even in the face of abuse. Best regards, Chzz ► 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Very well. Fair enough KeltieMartinFan (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Roger Woods article
HI Nicknack, Thanks for your speedy and helpful reply.
Of the sources I have quoted, 2 are the relevant websites which I guess would count as 'reliable self published sources', as these record the physical reality of the artists output.
Roger is dead and we only really have as sources the institutions where he studied and taught.
Other possible sources would be: the Royal College for the qualifications and awards,
The purpose of the article is to record the achievements of one of Britains most successful textile designers who received no recognition during his lifetime.We know it will not be straightforward, but feel it is important to get it right. Can you give me any advice?
Thankyou!
Ulyssesdove —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulyssesdove (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm Chzz, not Nicknack009 - you got replies from two people.
- When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs]]) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time.
- Yes, rogerwoods.co.uk and www.ariadnefabric.com are primary sources, and therefore do not help to establish notability. Thus, as I said, it would not (currently) meet the general notability guidelines of "significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" and therefore would probably be deleted. I'm sorry, but unless some true sources can be found, it will not be possible to have an article about them. If, as you say, they received little coverage, then this might be the case. Unless there are, for example, a couple of newspaper/magazine pieces about him, then I think you will have great difficulty in making an article. Chzz ► 23:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Joseph Kosinski - american?
Hi, thanks for adding something to the director stub, and when I was building the page, I thought about describing him as an "American" director, but I didn't know exactly his geneology. So I'm wondering, do you know if he's born in America or is a citizen or whatnot? Anyhow, keep wikignomeing. Rhetth (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Troutman article redux
Dear Chzz,
Many thanks for your help with the image, it's up.
So from what you've seen of the draft, do you think it's ready to go live on Wikipedia after we insert the last two missing references (in red)?
Thanks again,
--Burkeguy 12:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)
- I'm afraid it currently is rather biased, and not neutral. For example:
- First para uses "specializing" twice - who claims that they are specialists?
- "Troutman is an expert..." on various things - according to whom?
- "have sold tens of thousands of copies,"[citation needed]
- "and spent an estimated 10,000 work-hours creating"[citation needed]
- "Troutman was widely quoted"[weasel words]
- "the pioneering designer"[Neutrality disputed]
- "advises executives in achievement of Senior Executive Service ranks, as well as career management and growth for all career levels" - reads like an advert
- Early life and educationand almost all of Early career are unreferenced, so the facts can't be verified, and could be removed by anyone.
- Some of the references look like primary sources.
- I haven't checked through the whole article, but I hope that it gives you some ideas. It really is extremely difficult to write a neutral, well-balanced article when you have a conflict of interest, which is why it is so strongly discouraged. Chzz ► 13:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Chzz, thanks. I will work to correct these COI issues. Really appreciate being able to consult with you. My goal is to present a quality and neutral article, so I will keep on. Burkeguy 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)
- No problem. I'm glad you see it as constructive criticism, which it is - most people get annoyed at such complaints. In the long-run though, it's a lot easier this way - rather than having a later deletion battle or edit-war, etc.
- Have you read WP:AUTO ? It's about 'autobiographies', and I know it's not one of those, but I think a lot of the info there might be appropriate.
P.S.
Aichi Kinro Kaikan and Dagenham Roundhouse
| Discussion collapsed for readability |
|---|
|
hi Chzz, why do i get this message when searching for aichi kinro kaikan? There is a page named "Aichi Kinro Kaikan" on this wiki There were no results matching the query. the last message was from evangp. please respond soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangp (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see it now, but why doesn't the page show up when I search for it with google? EvangpEvangp (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, Why doesn't Aichi Kinro Kaikan show up on pages likes the following? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Concert_halls_in_Japan I am a wikimaniac and these small things matter a great deal to me. EvangpEvangp (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Please talk to me. I assume you are Japanese. I have been looking for a Japanese wikimaniac. I am from the USA. I hope you dont take offense because we bombed you in WWII. I'm sorry, but I wasn't even born. I need your help with other Japanese concert venues, not just Aichi Kinro Kaikan. Please build me a page about Senkei Hall, a concert venue that was in Tokyo, Japan. I don't know if it exists anymore, but it was a very important venue in its day during the 70's. LONG LIVE PEACE!! NO MORE WARS!!! EvangpEvangp (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 
Dagenham RoundhouseI would like to make one final request - Can you please create an article for the Dagenham Roundhouse? It was (is?) a famous concert venue in London, England. It is even referenced to in a number of wiki articles including the following!! LONG LIVE WIKIMANIACS!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagenham Evangp (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
* [[User:Evangp/test]] * [[User:Evangp/something]] * [[User:Evangp/another page]]
Hi my fellow friend! You did such a beautiful job on the Aichi Kinro Kaikan article I was hoping you'd create one more article for me. The Roundhouse in Dagenham would be my number one choice, but I also understand if you don't have the time. However, I do promise I'll make the next article if you make this one. I think I need to see one more article created from scratch. LONG LIVE WIKIMANIACS!! |
Getting close?
Chzz,
Graeme says we're ready to go live...what do you think? I'm still tracking down the references for those two red-lined sentences, and should have them shortly. After I do, can the article go live? I did a lot of revising, based on your earlier comments.
This is what Graeme wrote to me:
Hello Burkeguy, User:Burkeguy/Kathryn Troutman look ready for article space. Congratulations on getting the picture in. The process is extra difficult when you have to send the email. you should be able to use that move tab to shift it to Kathryn Troutman . I was a bit worried on the notability side, but there do seem to be plenty of references in independent publications, so it should be safe from deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
--Burkeguy 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkeguy (talk • contribs)
- Hi. Because of your declared conflict of interest here, you should not move the article to the live area yourself.
- Please wait a short time, and I will review the article again and provide you with feedback. I should be able to do so within an hour or two. Cheers, Chzz ► 17:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the article, and I'm sorry, but I still see a large number of issues with it. I have written comments on the talk page, User talk:Burkeguy/Kathryn Troutman. Chzz ► 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)